BAILII is a free service.
BAILII does not invite reliance upon, nor accept responsibility for, the information it provides. BAILII makes every effort to provide a high quality service. However, neither BAILII, its host Universities, nor the providers of data on BAILII, give any guarantees, undertakings or warranties concerning the accuracy, completeness or up-to-date nature of the information provided. Users should confirm information from another source if it is of sufficient importance for them to do so. For example:
(a) The judgments of any court below the highest level may have been the subject of an appeal, and there are likely to be instances where the judgment on appeal has not been made available to BAILII. Users should satisfy themselves that a judgment has not been the subject of an appeal before relying on it as an authority. (b) Legislation published on this web site may not yet be in force, or may have been amended or repealed. Users are warned that the publication of legislation on this web site does not indicate that any particular provision in a statute or statutory instrument was, or is currently, in force. (c) Hypertext links on BAILII are (in most cases) inserted by BAILII, not by the data providers. Automated insertion of over 10 million hypertext links on BAILII means that links will not be comprehensive or accurate in all cases. Neither BAILII, its host Universities, nor its providers of data, give any guarantees, undertakings or warranties concerning hypertext linking. (d) Many judgments are provided to BAILII in word-processing format (usually .rtf), and are then automatically converted into HTML format by a customised conversion program which aims, so far as possible, to reproduce the formatting of the original judgments. In view of the number of new judgments provided, it is not possible to proof-read the converted HTML version of every judgment. The judgments are produced using many different types of document formatting, and are not always provided in a consistent form. This occasionally leads to inconsistencies in the HTML conversion. The HTML version is provided as it provides greater functionality in relation to on-line searching, and it is displayed more quickly by browsers. (e) Judgments published on BAILII may not be the authentic version of the judgment.(i) The HTML version is not the authentic version of the judgment. For many judgments of the English courts the Approved Judgment in .rtf format is also available to be downloaded from BAILII.(ii) In a number of instances, the judgment published on BAILII is derived from the shorthand-writer's transcript as opposed to the version to be found in published law reports. In these instances there are likely to be discrepancies (usually of a minor nature) between the version published on BAILII and the law reports version. BAILII is unable to publish the law reports version as a result of copyright restrictions.(f) Where cases are to be cited in court in civil cases, practitioners should comply with paragraph 10 of the Practice Direction for the Court of Appeal, Civil Division (this was based on the Practice Note on Citation of Authorities (Court of Appeal (Civil Division)  1 WLR 1096;  3 All ER 256 and  1 WLR 854;  3 All ER 382, and section 8 of the Practice Statement on Judgments (22nd April 1998)  1 WLR 825). This requires as follows:"When authority is cited, whether in written or oral submissions, the following practice should in general be followed.• If a case is reported in the official Law Reports published by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales, that report should be cited. These are the most authoritative reports; they contain a summary of argument; and they are the most readily available.• If a case is not (or not yet) reported in the official Law Reports, but is reported in the Weekly Law Reports or the All England Law Reports, that report should be cited.• If a case is not reported in any of these series of reports, a report in any of the authoritative specialist series of reports may be cited. Such reports may not be readily available: photostat copies of the leading authorities or the relevant parts of such authorities should be annexed to written submissions; and it is helpful if photostat copies of the less frequently used series are made available in court.It is recognised that occasions arise when one report is fuller than another, or when there are discrepancies between reports. On such occasions, the practice outlined above need not be followed. It is always helpful if alternative references are given. Where a reserved written judgment has not been reported, reference should be made to the official transcript (if this is available) and not to the handed down text of the judgment."
Similar rules appply in criminal cases: see paragraphs II.17 and II.19 of the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction, which refers to the April 1999 Practice Direction mentioned above. (Limitations on the citation of authority are mentioned here).